The “L” Word

DOI10.1177/1065912916648011
AuthorJacob R. Neiheisel
Published date01 September 2016
Date01 September 2016
Subject MatterArticles
Political Research Quarterly
2016, Vol. 69(3) 418 –429
© 2016 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1065912916648011
prq.sagepub.com
Article
Introduction
The polarization of partisan elites has engendered a con-
siderable amount of hand-wringing among political
observers of all stripes. However, a growing number of
political scientists have begun to highlight the positive
aspects of elite polarization. Increased ideological divi-
sions among partisan elites have led to a corresponding
shift in the mass electorate, with Democratic identifiers
becoming more liberal over time and their Republican
counterparts becoming more conservative (Hetherington
2001). As the electorate has sorted along ideological
lines, attitudinal consistency has increased. Consequently,
voters are now thought to be able to participate more
effectively in the political process (Levendusky 2009).
Ideological sorting among the mass public has been
asymmetric, however. While Republicans have taken to
the conservative label with some alacrity, Democrats have
been slower to embrace the liberal moniker. Moreover, the
percentage of Democratic identifiers who profess to be
conservatives has shown little sign of abating over the last
four decades. Thus, while most Republicans are now
sorted—a status that has been associated with greater
degrees of voter competence—Democratic identifiers in
the electorate have lagged behind. As a result, Democrats
are perhaps less able to make sense of the political world,
even one in which divisions between the two parties are
quite pronounced (cf. Hussey 2012). What is more, while
many Americans hold policy positions that are commonly
associated with modern understandings of liberalism (and
are, therefore, operationally liberal), in symbolic terms, the
electorate is more conservative in nature (Claassen, Tucker,
and Smith 2015; Ellis and Stimson 2009, 2011, 2012).
The uneven nature of partisan sorting and the observed
divide between operational and symbolic ideology have
both been linked to Republican efforts at making “liberal”
648011PRQXXX10.1177/1065912916648011Political Research QuarterlyNeiheisel
research-article2016
1University at Buffalo, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jacob R. Neiheisel, Department of Political Science, University
at Buffalo, State University of New York, 422 Park Hall (North
Campus), Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
Email: jacobnei@buffalo.edu
The “L” Word: Anti-liberal Campaign
Rhetoric, Symbolic Ideology, and the
Electoral Fortunes of Democratic
Candidates
Jacob R. Neiheisel1
Abstract
In recent years, the electorate has sorted along ideological lines. Republican identifiers have grown more likely to
self-identify as conservatives. Democrats, however, have been slow to embrace the liberal label. And while many
Americans are operationally liberal and express support for liberal policy positions, in symbolic terms, the American
electorate is much more conservative in nature and appears reluctant to hew to the liberal label. The uneven nature
of partisan sorting and the observed symbolic/operational divide have both been linked to Republican efforts at
making “liberal” a dirty word, but researchers have yet to offer a direct test of the effects of exposure to anti-liberal
rhetoric. In this study, I rectify this shortcoming using the 2004 University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW)/Brigham
Young University (BYU) panel study coupled with data on the content of candidates’ campaign advertising from the
Wisconsin Advertising Project. I find that exposure to anti-liberal campaign messages had a direct effect on evaluations
of Democratic candidates, vote intention, and vote choice, but only in senate races. At the same time, self-identified
ideology was unmoved by elite efforts at disparaging the liberal label—thereby calling into question simple versions of
a common explanation for the existence of conservative Democrats and “conflicted” conservatives.
Keywords
campaign advertising, electoral politics, ideology, symbolic politics

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT